The Columbus Dispatch
www.dispatch.com
Study
says refuge no economic threat
OSU
experts said Madison County and its schools wouldn't be
unduly hurt by the Little Darby project.
Michael
Hawthorne
Thursday,
July 27, 2000
Creating a federal wildlife refuge along the Little Darby
Creek would barely cause a ripple in Madison County's
economy, according to an Ohio State University study released
yesterday.
Schools and local governments would lose some property-tax
revenue from land taken off the rolls. But OSU researchers
determined the loss would be small -- up to $64,500, or
1.7 percent of the property taxes collected last year
by the Jonathan Alder School District.
Madison County would lose up to $87,205, or 0.4 percent
of its annual property-tax collections.
"Any
decision about the refuge should not be based on economic
or fiscal concerns,'' said David Kraybill, OSU associate
professor of agricultural, environmental and development
economics.
"But
we realize there are other concerns that are best left
to citizens and policymakers.''
The study takes issue with one of the apocalyptic visions
circulated by farmers and others fighting the refuge but
concludes the refuge shouldn't be seen as a buffer against
suburban sprawl -- the focus of television ads financed
by pro- refuge groups.
Based on current land uses, zoning, access to public sewers
and distance to nearby towns, OSU researchers projected
the population within the refuge boundaries will remain
steady, despite land being bought and preserved by the
federal government.
A separate study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
is expected to reach the same economic and fiscal conclusions,
again shifting the debate to which side has the political
muscle in Congress to move or block the refuge.
About 23,000 acres in Madison and Union counties would
be bought from willing sellers during the next 30 years
under a Fish and Wildlife Service proposal.
The refuge would be surrounded by a 26,000-acre "farmland-preservation
zone,'' within which the agency would buy development
rights to keep the land in farming.
Kraybill found that losses in farm income and employment
would be offset by spending and jobs attributed to tourism
and operation of the refuge.
"While
there would be some change for individuals, in terms of
the entire economy, it would be a very small change,''
he said.
If the federal government bought all of the land it's
seeking, farm receipts -- including federal crop-support
payments -- would be cut almost in half, to $5.4 million
a year, according to the study.
Visitor spending, though, would increase by $3.2 million
in Madison and Union counties and by a total of $530,000
in 10 surrounding counties, the study concludes.
Spending on refuge operations and maintenance would add
an additional $775,000 a year.
Perhaps because refuge opponents requested the OSU study,
they did not immediately object to its findings. Instead,
they shifted focus to concerns about controlling weeds
and insects spawned by the refuge and maintaining tiles
and ditches that drain fields near the creek.
Although more than half of the land sought for purchase
would be preserved for farming, David Dhume, a Madison
County commissioner, said along with the debate about
the refuge are fears that it will alter the area's agricultural
heritage.
"We're
looking at cultural and societal change here, and many
people don't like that,'' Dhume said. "It brings
an element into Madison County that a majority of people
do not want.''
Some opponents also have suggested that they would be
more willing to sell their land if they could get prices
closer to what some Franklin County farmers are commanding
to turn fields into housing subdivisions and shopping
malls.
The OSU study does not consider the potential impact of
the refuge on local land prices, but some experts consider
fair market value for farmland in the area to be about
$3,000 an acre.
By contrast, Columbus Metro Parks this month bought 233
acres of land in a high-growth area near Pickerington
Ponds for about $12,500 an acre.
OSU researchers rebutted claims by some opponents that
property owners just outside the refuge boundaries would
reap the benefits in higher land prices.
Such an effect generally is limited to areas with high
levels of development and congestion, according to the
study.
Backers of the Little Darby refuge say the project is
needed to protect the habitat of endangered species and
prevent pollution of the creek, a national and state scenic
river about 25 miles west of Downtown.
Supporters said they hope the OSU study puts an end to
the often- bitter rhetoric that the refuge would destroy
the area's economy.
"This
is a triumph of information over misinformation and obfuscation,''
said Bill Hegge, project leader for the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
"It
gives us another good reason to move ahead and protect
this special place,'' said Denise King, lobbyist for the
Nature Conservancy. "If you really care about farmland
preservation, this is our best chance to make a difference.''
